Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 12, 2014 10:30pm-11:01pm PDT

10:30 pm
projects and asking their customer to write letters to the planning commission. in addition to the storage space, there is a safety issue, since they will be working directly above the three large cabinets and these weighing though ands of pounds have hazardous material, the close proximity, to the gas pipe and because this is a registered soft story building, this creates a dangerous environment in the case of a major earthquake, and these are constantly generate the heat and nose and emissions.
10:31 pm
and despite the opposition, and the wireless mraern, it appears that there is an agreement with the landlord, and i spoke with susan and told me that they wanted to sign the agreement tomorrow. however the landlord insisted on signing it yesterday, and there was a feeling that the aat attendance would not be here and original she had original plans to attend. susan had no lease and was operating on a month to month basis and in my opinion, she had no reasonable alternative but to accept the landlord's terms. and in fact, when i visited her yesterday morning, she kept repeating no choice, no choice. and the denial of this application, because it alters the small businesses will protect them and allow them to continue to serve the community that they love and which loves them back. and commissioners thank you for considering all of the input that my neighbors have shared with you in person and with the letters that you just received and with the letters that we
10:32 pm
turned in last week, this is the first time, that any of us, have done anything like this. and it is pretty scary. but we want to the community that includes the small businesses and neighbors and friends and most of whom are not rich or powerful or well connected. and this is our own avenue for help, since we did not receive the support from the neighborhood association, thank you so much for your consideration. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> i will call some more names, and hinbeker, and victor lang and george and the last name starts with a c. >> good afternoon, everyone, and my name is tony rasnetter and i live at 1420 taylor street and i am a designer and i lived there for six years and i enjoyed the neighborhood and
10:33 pm
the scale and the character and after the character review, icon included that 1098 jackson is an inappropriate site and is not an appropriate site for a roof top wireless facility, and the first issue is really massing in scale and the height of width of 6, 9-foot tall antennas and cabinets will dominate the roof and the wlg is about 38 feet high, and so the nine-foot antennas will be at the height of basically a fourth story. the second issue is really visibility from the public rights of way and even with the set backs and we will be able to see the antennas from the nearby sidewalks and streets. >> the third will be out of context, and neglectly impact the historic character of the neighborhood and the buildings that include, that were designed by ruso are close by, the city's residential
10:34 pm
guidelines, discourage the kluser and compatible with the buildings and, they add it and will conflict with the neighboring buildings, i strongry urge you to deny, this project and perhaps look at alternate locations that are not as interesting. >> thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good afternoon, commissioners, and my name is bill, and i live about 2 buildings from this location. and i have been a resident there for over 30 years and the project and i am not in a position to challenge, and the authenticity of it and the viability of it, and wireless and the impact on the
10:35 pm
environment, and and that results to the size of the towers, and in the relationship and the building now, and so, to make sure that these appendages on the towers that they are referring to will be maybe, with the existing architecture, and the existing sight lines, because, adding 6, 9-foot pieces in addition to typical roof appendages to be for the events or a penthouse stairwells or whatever. and would be or could potentially be a very unsightly, view for people who live in that community. and so, i just wanted to make sure that we could be
10:36 pm
optimizing the aesthetics of this installation. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> hello, my name is marsha hinbecker ander the owners of the ruso, building which is kitty corner to the place of the antennas and it is up the hill. and my front windows of all of the apartments can see the sight line and we think that it is ugly and unsightly to have nine towers and we would like that on our own roof. and they had grown some flowers and put a wood screen, but the association, you know, thought that the roof line should be clean in respect to the other neighbor and their views, and we removed that wood screen. and we don't think that put
10:37 pm
should put things on top and my mother, had been living there since 1945. and out to the family and we visit there often and we were trying to, one apartment study that she might eventually move back there. >> and, i just want to say that we don't appreciate it and i looked on at&t website and they told me the may macro and they are much stronger in their power and they use them successfully in rural areas, and just it to be in the other and the other people, and they are national, and who, classified it as a potential carcinogen. and yeah. >> and whatever, i can't see it right now. and i just, they said that they tried to put it on that church or something and i mean that i
10:38 pm
want to say that at least on the church people are only there two or three hours a day, but it is on the tower, they are 24 hours and that means, all of kids are getting radiated for 2 hours a day, and except for the ones on the school and so 18 hours a day, they are getting this i don't think that residential is a good place to put things like that. >> any way, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> thank you for having me today. >> my name is victor and i live across from the 1095, jackson building. and so, i am here today to represent my mom and my family members, who is sitting in the back row, and they have a language difficulty, and as the attorneys, and so we come to you today, as concerned citizens because they antennas are literally, 100 feet away from us. and we live directly opposite
10:39 pm
to these proposed antenna and we are afraid of the harmful effects that it might emit and so i am here just like everyone else today. with the creation of the antennas and there are those reasons are including the reduce in property values of our home that is pleasing the aesthetics and is long term health effects and the possibility of closing down the small businesses, and so there is a dry cleaners in the building, and if you install this, you are literally asking me to close down and these owners have been living there forever and you close them down, where else are they supposed to make a living? and so i am not sure, and force them to move away, and not give them a chance to earn money and try to work to get well, or something like that. and i have lived there for 20-plus years and every year i like to look outside of the
10:40 pm
windows during the holidays for the fireworks and the creation that sets my view. and we pay a lot of them in the neighborhood and this is not one thing that we signed up for. i don't want these 6 or 7 feet statutes in my view and it is hideous and a depressing site and they are going to drive down the property values who want to pay live near these things and there is research that there is a decrease in home value because of the presence of those. and the actual neighborhood where the people live and this is not a corporate neighborhood, just because i have a cell phone does not mean that i need to use installations and the cell phone reception has been fine this whole decade and i see no sense to close this, i am just a concerned resident that worries about these potential externalties and my parpts are near retirement and if you follow it and then, you are actually basically telling us
10:41 pm
to move away. >> thank you. your time is up. >> (inaudible) i read the report, and however, it is 37 percent, more for what is exposed. >> and i do have concerns as well about the thoroughness of that report and when i changed
10:42 pm
in the e-mail and with one of the planners, he suggested that when these containers get installed, we can request from the health department, the public health department and we will do the study at our house and i request that you approve this and you have that study down before you give this approval. and literally, right across i live from the roof and my wife works home, from home every day and she might leave the house to run, but she will be exposed to these radiation. and this is what is considered healthy for a long time. >> we are in joy of losing the city and, we are fortunate to have the bay view on the windows but i am going to be
10:43 pm
facing those but once, that is why i came here today and all of those reasons and i am on here, and the letter that you have in front of and you maybe you can take the time off todd to come and speak to you, after meeting with susan who is a case cleaner, owner, and on tuesday (inaudible) this is literally, ten by 15 the noise right below their feet, and standing up next to the... (inaudible) and she was literally scared. and so. we will most likely move away
10:44 pm
in that equipment is installed >> thank you, is there additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini? >> could i ask you some questions? we have had these approvals all of the time, there could be reason to disapprove and one would be the emissions approving and the other would be aesthetics and the first question is how high is a parapit and one of the pictures from the street. shows the installations in place but you can't see them because the parapit is pretty deep. >> it is probably two and a half feet tall. >> two and a half, because these are nine and they are set back far enough. >> they are set about eight feet from the primary frontage.
10:45 pm
>> you will be able to see them from the building above, but you will not be able to see them from the street. >> you can peek above and especially if you are coming from an uphill position. >> but you would not see, and it is perspective, and to the top. >> and that is one thing, and the other thing is that there was some testimony about the emissions and the earlier in the presentation, gentleman, was talking about the accessive amount within 68 feet of them. and when they go out and in this case, ham and edison, they will look and calculate the distances where that exposure is, and they will determine that the exposure area given that the antenna will not include any publicly accessible areas and that will include,
10:46 pm
the roof top areas and if the side to add a roof deck later on, they would not be in the position to deny to, and because they will exceed the public exposure limits. >> okay, and i know that, that sounds good. >> presumably that will be in the middle of roost and they would be within an area that would not be safe, but, their facing outward. >> correct. >> it tells a very correctional nature, and as you get out toward the north and south of the building. and so for instance, folks who will be up here including residents and a safe route that was added at a later time and of course, what will have to happen is part of the construction is that striping or barricades will be added to
10:47 pm
specifically for the areas and that would be off limit for the public and the personnel. >> that answers my question and the only thing would be the astheicand what the other commissioner haves to say. >> thank you. >> and i know, when i first joined the commission i thought that it was funny, and i remember seeing a couple of these in the consent calendar and said why do we have to look at this stuff? >> i think that is one example where we need to take a careful look at the type of equipment and where it is going to go. in the memo there was reference to a tier one location and, that was actually put forward in 2 on 11 and then the planning commission, and i guess disproved that. >> it was canceleddy staff. >> and i guess that i would not have expected to you think of that beforehand, but could you go over a little bit about what
10:48 pm
that design was and what the issued are. >> and it was six that were mounted to the edge of the museum as it approached the new library building, and the account is related to the building and given the wide stand off here between the building and presents itself to the street. and the other challenge is that you move them in the different locations and you have the skylights and the chimney they north, i am sorry, the south west corner of the building and aas you get to the back of the building, closer to this project site, you have an area where the cable cars exit and that is low to the street and signals traveling uphill, to this location will be blocked by the intervening apartment building, and it will be viable and more to the east and more toward the east. >> i heard a couple of things
10:49 pm
that you said, about aesthetics, and the best site on that building would be one where it is close to the street and little set back and then the second was on the service level, and so you are saying that the cable car museum site would not have been able to enhance the coverage as much as we are looking to do and then you will be looking at a secondary site in addition to the cable car. >> it will be looking somewhere up the hill. >> okay. >> the cable car museum is better down hill, compared to this project site. >> okay. >> thank you for that. because it was not actually in our packet and ways not aware of that. >> the next question is on the equipment, cabinet for the proposed site, where were there any alternatives to taking the basement space considered, and sort of different sighting within that envelope. >> when the issue came up and raised the concerns on behalf of the tenants i went out there
10:50 pm
is met with them, including and asked them to look at alternative to put the equipment on the roof and keep it low. and could they look at other light rail and, so we toured the area of the building and we are limited in the areas that we going into and there was a larger restaurant space, but they were consistent on keeping that space, preserved and let me ask you to shrink down the room and they will reduce it from 84 to 72 and shifted from the space, and moved with the equipment door with the request of the dry cleaner and less of an impact on her space and of course she will not be using it to make the cabinets but will have the racks and the reduces the needs for cooling fans and the heat and the other concerns that are mentioned previously. >> thank you for that explanation. i would like to reserve my thinking after maybe, hearing some of another commissioners i just don't know if there is a reason why, you know, we have
10:51 pm
tiered project sites for this type of equipment. and i just don't know, that i can support having equipment on a tier 7 site, when there are other opportunities even if they are not as perfect in terms of the coverage as we would like and but we have to balance, a lot of things. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> thank you, for reminding the commission about the tier 7 site and the waiting but i understand that all of the situations was the cable car and museum and down the hill is a different story. but my question is why didn't you move up jackson street to jones? because, the aesthetic issue on this particular side, i think is extremely important but the four corners of that intersection, all are incredible markers along the cable caroline because that is
10:52 pm
first, time in your really rising up jackson street. (inaudible) and so that indeed the roof is not as cluttered and interfering with the separate objects and all grouped with each other and look more concentrated in the rear of the roof. >> and i am not sure that i understand the second question, if could you clarify that for
10:53 pm
me. >> they are more in proximity to the house that puts you on the roof any way. >> so we are looking at, thank you for that. and so, what we are looking at is radio signals, right? and so, the reason that i can't go further up jackson street, is because the elevation gets too high, and i get out of the search ring, which is a very small search ring for this area and it is a very density populated area and the coverage gap is right in that area. if i move to the bottom of the roof i can't get get over the roof i have to get up 15 or 20 feet, and every foot that i go back i got to go up, that is how radio signals work, i can't put everything in the middle of
10:54 pm
the building unless i can go up high. >> the comment that that would like to make, and for disclosure, i live 100 feet to the rear of the building and i am tho out of the range of where i could not participate in the discussion. and i live in the rear of the building. and i am an active at&t user, and i do not have any drops or failures in my reception in that general area. so my question, is why intense in the case of already a built up neighborhood? where i think that the impact was clearly stated by a large number of people. >> okay, commissioner hillis? >> so commissioner johnson has confirmed that, and this is not a preferred site and it is such
10:55 pm
a large installation, and it is tough, and i don't quite, i am not quite sure that i understand, the issue with the tenants and what has been resolved. and it seems. >> so i am going to. >> when the issue came forth, i met with both, and i spent four hours in person or on the phone, there were concerns about would she be displaced by the over all size in the equipment room will be in the dry cleaner space and so i looked to try to reduce the size or the different locations in the room or building and that was not going to work. or just the spacial constraint and then we looked at could we ship the space so that it works at a bet and her takes a space from each tenant and when i spoke with the tenants yesterday, i asked them to confirm that it is not a support of the project, but they were at best okay with the project as long as the equipment area did not expand beyond what they were promised
10:56 pm
and it was chalked out and so we had the at&p, it is released and so the tenants came to agree with the landlord, and for the dry cleaners will get a lease extension, month to month and they will be reduce the rent for both of the tenants. and i mean, this space is going away from here and to the equipment. correct. >> and so the tenants and going to work with the tenants to add the shelving to better use the space, when i visited the space it is not used well in terms of storage and shelving, and different mechanisms, the challenge is up top on the main level and the units and shallow and there is not much that we can do with that, we are trying to find to make ways of the concern and what is, that we are okay with and long as they get bigger and the commotion and saying that if any changes are made in the area and they come back for review i would not say that approve it over
10:57 pm
the counter, and make sure that the tenants were fully aware. >> okay. >> it just seems like it is alittle unresolved. >> i felt that this was caused displacement and i would have brought it forward to the planning commission, today. >> we would have been in deny, in caused displacement. >> and both tenants are on a month to month. >> no, the cafe is not. >> okay. >> all right. >> commissioner richards? >> this is my first one of these, so i just, coming from the neighborhood, and a neighborhood that i really am overwhelmed at the amount of opposition to this it is incredible over an antenna. >> we have the benefit of at&t customers i do not like the site and i don't think that it is preferred and i do echo commissioner johnson and hillis's concerns, i would not want this next to me, quite
10:58 pm
frankly, i don't think that it is necessary and i don't think that it is desirable. >> so, i make a motion to disapprove. >> commissioner richards? as the motion before you was a motion for approval, would you have to make a motion of intent to disapprove. >> okay. >> commissioner i don't johnson? >> thank you very much, i just really quick before we vote on the motion, i focus on the cable car museum because at&t actually had analyzed that site and brought forward a project plan for that. and but in the report it also looks at 1199 mason street and it says, and another san francisco department, rec and park says that they don't want to lease the space to at&t, so, for all city family. >> we are all city family. yes, so what is up with that? >> so, we are all city family and i have actually spoken, with the rec and park, the challenge with the museum or the library site and the
10:59 pm
community center is that you have solar panels each if was a willing landlord in this location, i don't think that it is a sight or a macro sight would be vieible here and it does not appear to cover the same coverage area, if i could, please the chair. >> respond to the alternate, and i look at each and every one of them and the site and i am going to walk the neighborhood and what i didn't see were easy sites that they missed maybe it was a landlord who was cautious so that we could have a talk with them and say that this site is better skinned and more appropriate. and but the specific avalanche is higher, but as well as when they have been unable to get the sites in the neighborhood and especially the noevalley, and the sunset and it is
11:00 pm
contributed in antennas, and these are on poles and sometimes two feet up, we have far less jurisdiction as a city to deny or relocate or redesign those. for every macro site, there is a wide range, for 7 to 15 of those sites and what we are seeing prior to this, we are bringing in the sites and it will still continue to do so and there is a balance and we don't allow the macro sites and not what they want, but they tend to pursue and we have less jurisdiction and it is not a either or but it is something to consider. >> and i definitely agree with you and i think that the only reason that i question talking about the alternative sites and i think that this neighborhood, along with the concern others that want to look at north beach and others, are just very difficult, and there is highly tense, and there are little

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on